Deranged Rhino Posted November 15, 2015 Posted November 15, 2015 What does his Christian faith have to do with it? He's just a misguided doctor lashing out.
Tiberius Posted November 15, 2015 Posted November 15, 2015 What does his Christian faith have to do with it? He's just a misguided doctor lashing out. A misguided politician using religion to rally support for his cause (higher office)
Deranged Rhino Posted November 15, 2015 Posted November 15, 2015 A misguided politician using religion to rally support for his cause (higher office) So, in other words, religion is only an issue when it's Christianity. Got it.
DC Tom Posted November 15, 2015 Posted November 15, 2015 A misguided politician using religion to rally support for his cause (higher office) It's the poor and oppressed lashing out at the rich.
Doc Posted November 15, 2015 Posted November 15, 2015 So, in other words, religion is only an issue when it's Christianity. Got it. You ain't kidding. It's amazing how many libs have become Muslim sympathizers just so they can toe the lib line and blame everything on Christianity and Judaism. It's pathetic.
birdog1960 Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 Yep. Welcome to the reason science and metaphysics aren't compatible. went to a lecture by the head Vatican astronomer recently. very impressive astrophysicist.. very likely he's appropriately labelled a genius. he discussed this. it's not that metaphysics and science are incompatible. it's that one must grant the premise that the world is real in order to study science. it's absolutely necessary. solipsism, or the belief that we are actually alone in the world and it only exists in our own minds is the premise that is incompatible with science. what carson is saying is tightly related to this. I reject it outright. and so must anyone that uses science for any decision making. by that fact alone, he's inconsistent in his beliefs since neurosurgery is based on science. btw, he was just as critical of the 6000 year old earth crowd as the Stephen hawking atheist crowd saying both base their beliefs on agendas and convenience rather than evidence. too long to go into here and frankly it was extremely deep and complicated but he made his case well. in regards to hawking, he summarized his book on the "proof" that God was not involved in the creation of the universe by saying that hawking's proof makes gravity into God. the astrophysicist thought that appropriate since Catholics celebrate Mass. there are clearly some amazing intellects considering these questions. unfortunately, ben carson is not one of them.
IDBillzFan Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 went to a lecture by the head Vatican astronomer recently. very impressive astrophysicist.. very likely he's appropriately labelled a genius. he discussed this. it's not that metaphysics and science are incompatible. it's that one must grant the premise that the world is real in order to study science. it's absolutely necessary. solipsism, or the belief that we are actually alone in the world and it only exists in our own minds is the premise that is incompatible with science. what carson is saying is tightly related to this. I reject it outright. and so must anyone that uses science for any decision making. by that fact alone, he's inconsistent in his beliefs since neurosurgery is based on science. btw, he was just as critical of the 6000 year old earth crowd as the Stephen hawking atheist crowd saying both base their beliefs on agendas and convenience rather than evidence. too long to go into here and frankly it was extremely deep and complicated but he made his case well. in regards to hawking, he summarized his book on the "proof" that God was not involved in the creation of the universe by saying that hawking's proof makes gravity into God. the astrophysicist thought that appropriate since Catholics celebrate Mass. there are clearly some amazing intellects considering these questions. unfortunately, ben carson is not one of them. Gee, it's not everyday you have a Catholic say the Book of Genesis is bunk. Well done.
birdog1960 Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 Gee, it's not everyday you have a Catholic say the Book of Genesis is bunk. Well done. actually, it is everyday that Catholics say that literal interpretation is incorrect. at least the vast majority of Catholics.
IDBillzFan Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 actually, it is everyday that Catholics say that literal interpretation is incorrect. at least the vast majority of Catholics. The majority of Catholics believe the Book of Genesis is bunk?
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 Gee, it's not everyday you have a Catholic say the Book of Genesis is bunk. Well done. Or a rural general practitioner slam the intellect of a world renowned brain surgeon.
birdog1960 Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 The majority of Catholics believe the Book of Genesis is bunk? the majority of Catholics and especially Catholic theologians believe that literal acceptance of it is naïve and misguided. "bunk" is your word. I never typed it til now.
FireChan Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 the majority of Catholics and especially Catholic theologians believe that literal acceptance of it is naïve and misguided. "bunk" is your word. I never typed it til now. [citation needed]
IDBillzFan Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 the majority of Catholics and especially Catholic theologians believe that literal acceptance of it is naïve and misguided. "bunk" is your word. I never typed it til now. Okay. Let me put it another way since you're clearly not smart enough to get the point: As a Catholic, you believe the Book of Genesis is wrong, that God did not create the heavens and the earth?
birdog1960 Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 (edited) [citation needed] st Augustine is frequently cited in the official Catechism of the church. read his take on creation here. http://www.catholic.com/tracts/creation-and-genesis I do not have a poll of Catholics (although it may exist). but it's reasonable to conclude that a majority agree with the catechism else they would look elsewhere for spiritual guidance. for now, let me state alternatively, that many highly respected Catholic theologians do not agree with the literal interpretation of Genesis. Augustine "It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20 [A.D. 408]). Okay. Let me put it another way since you're clearly not smart enough to get the point: As a Catholic, you believe the Book of Genesis is wrong, that God did not create the heavens and the earth? yes, I believe He did. but not in a few days and not 6000 years ago. and not with the wave of a wand. Edited November 17, 2015 by birdog1960
FireChan Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 st Augustine is frequently cited in the official Catechism of the church. read his take on creation here. http://www.catholic.com/tracts/creation-and-genesis I do not have a poll of Catholics (although it may exist). but it's reasonable to conclude that a majority agree with the catechism else they would look elsewhere for spiritual guidance. for now, let me state alternatively, that many respected highly Catholic theologians do not agree with the literal interpretation of Genesis. That's the biggest !@#$ing leap I have ever seen. Are you actually a licensed physician? How in the hell is that a "probable" conclusion?
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 yes, I believe He did. but not in a few days and not 6000 years ago. and not with the wave of a wand. You don't believe that He has the power to do so?
IDBillzFan Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 yes, I believe He did. but not in a few days and not 6000 years ago. and not with the wave of a wand. Not in a few days, but in seven?
birdog1960 Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 (edited) You don't believe that He has the power to do so? That's the biggest !@#$ing leap I have ever seen. Are you actually a licensed physician? How in the hell is that a "probable" conclusion? I would be foolish to try and restate what st Augustine has so beautifully communicated on this issue. I agree with him fully. in case you all missed it the first time: Augustine "It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20 [A.D. 408]). Edited November 17, 2015 by birdog1960
FireChan Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 I would be foolish to try and restate what st Augustine has so beautifully communicated on this issue. I agree with him fully. in case you all missed it the first time: Augustine "It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20 [A.D. 408]). I don't care what he said. To claim that means that everyone who turns to him, and that the majority, probably agree with him is logically incorrect.
birdog1960 Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 (edited) I don't care what he said. To claim that means that everyone who turns to him, and that the majority, probably agree with him is logically incorrect. I said it is reasonable to conclude. I stand by that. your word is "probable". in the last half dozen posts, two words have been incorrectly ascribed to me. and we're arguing theology? yep....ridiculous and if you don't care what he says then you don't care what I do (which is quite obvious) since i'm in full agreement. Edited November 17, 2015 by birdog1960
Recommended Posts